Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:15 pm

angad84 wrote:
Geo-location and gravity weapons aren't true SEAD/DEAD. Per my information, the software needs tuning to get the ESM and any potential ARM talking.

Respectively, that is 4th gen thinking. In a 5th gen world both the F-22 and F-35 are perfectly capable of locating, identifying and prosecuting a SEAD/DEAD target set. The system doesn't care how it dies, just that it has.

In the case of the F-35, it doesn’t require a high speed ARM when it can move, likely near undetected, close enough to the target where cheaper and more destructive weapons can be employed in a far more precise and discriminate manner.

angad84 wrote:
Didn't know AARGM-ER was being tailored for the F-35, but like I said, given its ESM capability, it only makes sense to give it an ARM capability. US NAVAIR roadmaps indicate an EW capability/maturity gap between F-35 and EA-18G, so whatever they can or plan to slap onto the F-35 will require software mods, testing and cert.

I don’t consider that a valid comparison. The USAF use F-16CJ for the SEAD role and the Tornado ECR is very much in the F-16CJ class and not in the capability class of the EA-18G from an EW perspective. The Tornado essentially uses HARM to prosecute radars but an F-35 will use a suite of sensors and weapons to prosecute the radars, associated TELS and other related systems and do so in threat environment that a Tornado ECR is unlikely to be able to enter.

As for overall EW capability, while integration has been halted for NGJ on the F-35, it will eventually move onto the platform. The budget for NGJ is currently focused on replacing ALQ-99 in service and awarding the low and high band pod contracts.

angad84 wrote:
No F-35 in today's configuration can be a drop-in replacement for the Tornado ECR, although that can probably be achieved with some additional work. To significantly exceed the ECR's complete capability set will probably require a lot of work, and the cost and time implications thereof are unknown.

I disagree. The Italians are replacing their Tornado ECRs with F-35A and the capability of the F-35 sensor suite far exceeds that present in the ECR. If the only thing you consider you need to be a SEAD aircraft is an ARM capability (with associated systems) then the definition you are using for SEAD is outdated.
 
angad84
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:46 pm

Agree to disagree on the ARM issue. LO/VLO is a survivability enhancer, it does not automagically confer blanket survivability, especially against a serious IADS. They're not chasing range extensions on ARM because they're bored, you know.

Fair point on the EW capability, I let my mental comparisons of 'F-35 vs X' run away a bit! Not sure what sort of dedicated jamming (even podded) the ECR has to be honest. I guess it'll boil down to – is the Luftwaffe willing to lose a specific weapons/tactics capability to perform the ECR mission, or would they prefer a more broadly analogous replacement. My guess is the latter, but it'll depend on what inputs go into the decision process (and no, those inputs are not necessarily tactical!).
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:20 am

angad84 wrote:
Agree to disagree on the ARM issue. LO/VLO is a survivability enhancer, it does not automagically confer blanket survivability, especially against a serious IADS. They're not chasing range extensions on ARM because they're bored, you know.

I’d say that range extensions for ARMs make the case for 4th gen investment to be leveraged a while longer as with the continued range expansion of threat systems, both of which 5th gen VLO negates.

angad84 wrote:
Fair point on the EW capability, I let my mental comparisons of 'F-35 vs X' run away a bit! Not sure what sort of dedicated jamming (even podded) the ECR has to be honest. I guess it'll boil down to – is the Luftwaffe willing to lose a specific weapons/tactics capability to perform the ECR mission, or would they prefer a more broadly analogous replacement. My guess is the latter, but it'll depend on what inputs go into the decision process (and no, those inputs are not necessarily tactical!).

I’d say what the German Air Force may miss from a retirement of the Tornado ECR is the recce component more than any SEAD capability. At the moment I’m not aware of any specific visual recce pod work for the F-35 although the Terma Multi-mission pod would be an excellent candidate to house such a system.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7250
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:03 am

It would be easier to certify reccelite on the Typhoons than adding the SEAD and nuclear mission to the Typhoon fleet.
 
angad84
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:40 pm

Ozair wrote:
angad84 wrote:
Agree to disagree on the ARM issue. LO/VLO is a survivability enhancer, it does not automagically confer blanket survivability, especially against a serious IADS. They're not chasing range extensions on ARM because they're bored, you know.

I’d say that range extensions for ARMs make the case for 4th gen investment to be leveraged a while longer as with the continued range expansion of threat systems, both of which 5th gen VLO negates.

angad84 wrote:
Fair point on the EW capability, I let my mental comparisons of 'F-35 vs X' run away a bit! Not sure what sort of dedicated jamming (even podded) the ECR has to be honest. I guess it'll boil down to – is the Luftwaffe willing to lose a specific weapons/tactics capability to perform the ECR mission, or would they prefer a more broadly analogous replacement. My guess is the latter, but it'll depend on what inputs go into the decision process (and no, those inputs are not necessarily tactical!).

I’d say what the German Air Force may miss from a retirement of the Tornado ECR is the recce component more than any SEAD capability. At the moment I’m not aware of any specific visual recce pod work for the F-35 although the Terma Multi-mission pod would be an excellent candidate to house such a system.

1. Then why are they bothering with AARGM-ER on F-35? ;)

2. Yep, good point. I was told at RIAT last year that the UK plan to replace Tornado with Typhoon involves using a Litening or similar pod, as there are no plans to qualify a dedicated recce pod (I believe it was Raptor on the Tonka?). It was openly acknowledged as a less than ideal solution, but P3E seems a more overall strike oriented update than a 1:1 capability replication of Tornado.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 11, 2018 8:44 pm

angad84 wrote:
1. Then why are they bothering with AARGM-ER on F-35? ;)

Noted… I'd guess at two specific reasons. One, an ability to support 4th gen aircraft operating in the battlespace. While the USAF will induct between 60-80 F-35s each year there is still a long time until it become an all 5th gen fighter fleet. An ARM is not useless to a 5th gen platform, but perhaps not the sole or optimal solution it is for 4th gen.

Second, while AARGM was essentially the same body shape as HARM the AARGM-ER changes the body shape significantly, allowing the missile to be internally carried. It most cases that adds an extra string to the set of internal weapons an F-35 can carry and adds additional tactical options. It also allows AARGM-ER to be potentially carried on other 5th gen platforms including F-22, B-21, any new emerging UCAV etc.

AARGM
Image

AARGM-ER
Image

angad84 wrote:
2. Yep, good point. I was told at RIAT last year that the UK plan to replace Tornado with Typhoon involves using a Litening or similar pod, as there are no plans to qualify a dedicated recce pod (I believe it was Raptor on the Tonka?). It was openly acknowledged as a less than ideal solution, but P3E seems a more overall strike oriented update than a 1:1 capability replication of Tornado.

[/quote]
I don't think it will be long until a podded recce system is available for F-35 but I expect it is not a priority right now. Nations are probably focused on replacing fighter fleets and perhaps awaiting 5th gen experience, and hands on understanding of how the F-35 sensor fusion integrates with their respective ISR systems, before they decide on future recce requirements.

The list of current Tornado operators seem to be handling the retirement and change of roles from Tornado to F-35/Eurofighter and given both Italy and the UK have gone the F-35/Eurofighter route it would not be unexpected if the remaining Tornado partner Germany also went that way.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:08 pm

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Jan 14, 2018 10:57 pm

keesje wrote:

Unfortunately there is nothing in there we don't already know. What we can derive from the interview though is that any joint FCAS program between France and Germany is still nothing more than a concept and a political agreement to look at the potential of.
 
vr773
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:14 am

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

Unfortunately there is nothing in there we don't already know. What we can derive from the interview though is that any joint FCAS program between France and Germany is still nothing more than a concept and a political agreement to look at the potential of.


I understand that it's disappointing to read about alternative approaches when you're on "team F-35" but I think there's a lot we learn from this interview.
It verifies that Airbus is willing to form a cooperation with Dassault. We learn that the industry's expectation is that Germany and France will allow funding to kick off the FCAS development in 2018. We learn that FCAS is intended to replace the capabilities currently provided by Tornado and Eurofighter. And we learn that Hoke proposed a Eurofighter upgrade (and not the current version) to replace the Tornado as a stop-gap measure.
Of course that would require Germany to pull out of nuclear sharing with the United States which in my opinion would make sense and which is something the German population is in favor of.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:29 am

vr773 wrote:
[We learn that FCAS is intended to replace the capabilities currently provided by Tornado and Eurofighter. And we learn that Hoke proposed a Eurofighter upgrade (and not the current version) to replace the Tornado as a stop-gap measure.

Dirk Hoke:
Our proposal is to develop the Eurofighter further so that it can replace the Tornado in the medium term. Such a project would secure thousands of jobs in southern Germany and elsewhere, not only for the major aerospace companies but also for a lot of suppliers as well. [...] Eurofighter production - in Manching and Augsburg, for instance - could continue, and Europe's technological competence in building combat aircraft would be strengthened.

Even if the Eurofighter is chosen as the replacement aircraft, production will run out by mid-2020s. The proposed FCAS would likely not enter final assembly until 2030, serial production commencing even later. Assuming standard F-35s are bought and no further Eurofighters, Germany would remain without any combat aircraft production for at least 5 years, possibly even more than 10. I think that politicians are looking into assembling or at least outfitting the German F-35 in Germany. Otherwise they're risking the loss of the current knowledge. One cannot lay off thousands of workers one day and expect them to come back 10 years later.

I wonder if a combination could be viable:
1) Extend Eurofigher production to 2022-2026
2) Assemble/Work on custom F-35 (in Gemany) between 2023-2030
includes development of adequate pods for the recce & ew role and integration into the airframe
3) Start assembly of FCAS 2028-2032
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 7250
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:57 am

If you build more EFs, you do not need the F-35s and vice versa and much less do you need a final assembly line for 60 F-35s unless you want to pay as much per frame as Japan.

With service lives of 30+ years there always will be a manufacturing gap. At best you could do a Tranche 4 order of 60-80 frames as Tornado replacements that you take from 2023 to 2030, with the production rate from 2026-2030 reduced to 5 frames per year or something. Then FCAS from 2030/2032 onwards, which could slowly replace the Tranche 1. It is the most efficient solution I can imagine and does reduce some risks in the current fleet. You can retire the Tornado early and you have some reserve if the Typhoons with the manufacturing faults in the airframe need to be retired early if they show cracks.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:56 am

vr773 wrote:

I understand that it's disappointing to read about alternative approaches when you're on "team F-35"

Well perhaps I need to say this again for probably the 20th time in this thread... I 100% believe that a Eurofighter solution to replace the Tornado is the right option for Germany but Germany isn't sure on that and their future role in NATO Nuclear Sharing isn't clear. If they stay in nuclear sharing then putting a nuke on the Eurofighter is a cost prohibitive exercise, hence an American jet would be required. If an American jet is required, clearly the F-35 is that option.

vr773 wrote:
but I think there's a lot we learn from this interview.

I disagree, hence why I already stated as such. Welcome to the world where not everyone has to agree.

vr773 wrote:
It verifies that Airbus is willing to form a cooperation with Dassault. We learn that the industry's expectation is that Germany and France will allow funding to kick off the FCAS development in 2018. We learn that FCAS is intended to replace the capabilities currently provided by Tornado and Eurofighter. And we learn that Hoke proposed a Eurofighter upgrade (and not the current version) to replace the Tornado as a stop-gap measure.
Of course that would require Germany to pull out of nuclear sharing with the United States which in my opinion would make sense and which is something the German population is in favor of.

Nothing there is new. We know the only option for a future European fighter jet for Germany is a tie up between Airbus and Dassault. We know Dassault and Airbus want this to happen soon. We know Airbus propose to replace Eurofighter and Tornado capabilities with FCAS. We know Nuclear sharing is an issue in Germany right now. All of this has been in the last 3-5 pages of this thread.

mxaxai wrote:
Even if the Eurofighter is chosen as the replacement aircraft, production will run out by mid-2020s. The proposed FCAS would likely not enter final assembly until 2030, serial production commencing even later.

There doesn't appear to be any way that production of an upgraded Eurofighter will last until FCAS is ready. We know FCAS is targeted for an entry into service in approx 2040 and replace current Eurofighters by 2045.

If Germany pursues an upgraded Eurofighter then the alternatives are to gap the production line for a short period of time until the upgrades were ready or simply order more Eurofighters today and upgrade them to a newer standard later.

Realistically, what an upgraded Eurofighter will have is much of the upgrades already planned for other Eurofighter partners that wouldn't be coming to German jets anyway, such as AESA radar, conformal tanks, actually equipped their aircraft with the IRST, perhaps adding a terrain following radar mode, maybe adding some additional weapons and an outside chance of upgrading the engine. I don't see much else they will or can do beyond that.


mxaxai wrote:
Assuming standard F-35s are bought and no further Eurofighters, Germany would remain without any combat aircraft production for at least 5 years, possibly even more than 10. I think that politicians are looking into assembling or at least outfitting the German F-35 in Germany. Otherwise they're risking the loss of the current knowledge.

As others have suggested it would be expensive to locally assemble the F-35s so if value for money is needed that isn't the best procurement method. A better option would be to buy them off the shelf cheap as they can, operate them for 20 years and replace them with FCAS when that arrives. In the timeframe we are talking a German F-35 would be US$85 million or so each fly away.

mxaxai wrote:
One cannot lay off thousands of workers one day and expect them to come back 10 years later.

Germany and France would need to sort out where FCAS was being built before you kept those thousands of jobs. Dassault is already offering some of that work to Belgium being mindful Dassault will want local french manufacture as well. The good news is Germany has an active and established aerospace manufacturing industry so a future production line for an airbus military jet could hive workers from a civilian production line to assist.

mxaxai wrote:
I wonder if a combination could be viable:
1) Extend Eurofigher production to 2022-2026
2) Assemble/Work on custom F-35 (in Gemany) between 2023-2030
includes development of adequate pods for the recce & ew role and integration into the airframe
3) Start assembly of FCAS 2028-2032

Not sure why you need F-35s in there if you extend Eurofighter production?

FCAS is not happening until 2040 so as already stated above the timeframes don't really gel for a continuation of production.

Airbus first revealed details of its FCAS work for the German Bundeswehr in mid-2016, at which time it was being pitched as a potential successor to the Luftwaffe’s Panavia Tornado fleet. However, given the compressed timelines involved in that particular effort (the service needs to field a replacement in 2025 in time for a 2030 out-of-service date), the FCAS in general and the New Fighter in particular is now being seen more as a potential replacement for the Eurofighter Typhoon, which is due to be retired from German service in about 2045.

http://www.janes.com/article/75550/airb ... er-concept

Realistically, Rafale and Eurofighter both required close to 20 years to develop to the point they were functional, F-35 and F-22 were similar and from what we can see of J-20 and Su-57 they are also looking at those dev timelines. Even starting today, which won't happen with no German Government, the time it will take Germany/France/others to dev a new jet is long and the money for such needs to flow, probably at the expense of upgrades to Eurofighters/Rafales.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:22 pm

Ozair wrote:
Realistically, what an upgraded Eurofighter will have is much of the upgrades already planned for other Eurofighter partners that wouldn't be coming to German jets anyway, such as AESA radar, [...] IRIS-T

It's weird that Germany spent 340 mio. € on the Captor E (AESA) radar but didn't actually order it. Never noticed that.
Note that the IRIS-T is in service, the patrol group for the baltic states was equipped with AMRAAM and IRIS-T missiles. The Meteor is coming soon as well. I agree that they could spend more on upgrading the existing fleet with all the ready but unused equipment.
Ozair wrote:
As others have suggested it would be expensive to locally assemble the F-35s so if value for money is needed that isn't the best procurement method. A better option would be to buy them off the shelf cheap as they can, operate them for 20 years and replace them with FCAS when that arrives. In the timeframe we are talking a German F-35 would be US$85 million or so each fly away.

There is more to it than just the price. For example, building something in-country means that about 40% of the money spent is directly returned through taxes on salaries. Money spent outside of the country is mostly lost. Aerospace workers, even in the assembly lines, are not low-skilled employees. Once the people are gone, the knowledge and experience vanishes as well. Rebuilding that needs a lot of time and money.
Ozair wrote:
Germany and France would need to sort out where FCAS was being built before you kept those thousands of jobs. Dassault is already offering some of that work to Belgium being mindful Dassault will want local french manufacture as well. The good news is Germany has an active and established aerospace manufacturing industry so a future production line for an airbus military jet could hive workers from a civilian production line to assist.

I am sure that production will be split once more. Regarding civil aviation, it's not as if Airbus was just waiting for new workers. And even if they move over, a lot of work will move geographically as well. Especially Bavaria is at risk of losing much. For comparison, note how spread out F-35 production is: https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map
Lockheed certainly didn't spread it over the entire world out of the goodness of their heart, nor was it absolutely necessary for the airplane itself. Military projects are never about "value for money" but 90% politics.
Ozair wrote:
Not sure why you need F-35s in there if you extend Eurofighter production?
FCAS is not happening until 2040 so as already stated above the timeframes don't really gel for a continuation of production.

Maybe to bridge the gap between the end of Eurofighter production and start of FCAS production? I don't see how they can stretch EF production until the start of FCAS assembly.
Ozair wrote:
Realistically, Rafale and Eurofighter both required close to 20 years to develop to the point they were functional.
Realistically, it's a question of how much money are you willing to spend in what time. The FCAS could certainly fly as a prototype by 2030 if given the funds.
 
salttee
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:33 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The FCAS could certainly fly as a prototype by 2030 if given the funds.

Assuming that they can decide what they want to build before 2029.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:56 pm

mxaxai wrote:
It's weird that Germany spent 340 mio. € on the Captor E (AESA) radar but didn't actually order it. Never noticed that.
Note that the IRIS-T is in service, the patrol group for the baltic states was equipped with AMRAAM and IRIS-T missiles. The Meteor is coming soon as well. I agree that they could spend more on upgrading the existing fleet with all the ready but unused equipment.

No I meant to say IRST, that is the PIRATE IRST used by Eurofighter customers. It was one of the options Germany never inducted into their Eurofighters.

mxaxai wrote:
There is more to it than just the price. For example, building something in-country means that about 40% of the money spent is directly returned through taxes on salaries. Money spent outside of the country is mostly lost. Aerospace workers, even in the assembly lines, are not low-skilled employees. Once the people are gone, the knowledge and experience vanishes as well. Rebuilding that needs a lot of time and money.

Agree that there is more than price but I am not a fan of spending money in country just so you can get the tax back. In most of those cases I think a Government is better placed to find the cheapest price available and then use the savings to invest directly into their own country.

mxaxai wrote:
I am sure that production will be split once more. Regarding civil aviation, it's not as if Airbus was just waiting for new workers. And even if they move over, a lot of work will move geographically as well. Especially Bavaria is at risk of losing much. For comparison, note how spread out F-35 production is: https://www.f35.com/about/economic-impact-map
Lockheed certainly didn't spread it over the entire world out of the goodness of their heart, nor was it absolutely necessary for the airplane itself. Military projects are never about "value for money" but 90% politics.
That is just the domestic map, shouldn’t be a surprise because in the US it helps immensely to have broad state support. But production is different to manufacturing. The F-35 is produced/assembled in the US in one place, the manufacturing of all the components occurs globally.

mxaxai wrote:
Maybe to bridge the gap between the end of Eurofighter production and start of FCAS production? I don't see how they can stretch EF production until the start of FCAS assembly.

I just don’t see how that happens with the current timeframes.

mxaxai wrote:
Realistically, it's a question of how much money are you willing to spend in what time. The FCAS could certainly fly as a prototype by 2030 if given the funds.

Could they? If we said Airbus and Eurofighter today said they would undertake a joint program and started work it would be 2 years before the requirements for the aircraft were bedded down. Another 18 months for the industrial agreements to occur. Some lead dev work would need to be undertaken but they are going to have to develop a host of technologies they currently don’t use if they plan an aircraft based on what Airbus has proposed. The dev work has to occur based on the funding provisioned, not on the schedule that Airbus/Dassault wants it to go. Based on the above I think 2030 is very optimistic.

That is before we have the conflict that occurred last time they tried to do this and went their separate ways. What happens to the German Air Force if three or five years from now France pulls out of FCAS because they don’t have the engine choice, or the airframe won’t be built to land on a carrier as per French requirements, or it is bigger than France wants it to be, or Germany is not happy with the industrial workshare?
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:40 am

I wonder what German pilot would say to all of you who want him to carry out a deep strike in contested airspace w EF?

I’ll bet dimes to $’s 99% of the pilots tasked w such missions would select an F35?

All this talk of FCAS is proof of one thing; 5 th gen is brilliant if and only if it is European.
 
vr773
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:33 pm

Ozair wrote:
I disagree, hence why I already stated as such. Welcome to the world where not everyone has to agree.

When you write "nothing here that we didn't already know" you appear as speaking for everyone. This has the potential to discourage others from posting valuable information and it doesn't serve the interest of a vibrant discussion culture in my opinion. I for one found the interview very interesting.

Ozair wrote:
Realistically, Rafale and Eurofighter both required close to 20 years to develop to the point they were functional, F-35 and F-22 were similar and from what we can see of J-20 and Su-57 they are also looking at those dev timelines. Even starting today, which won't happen with no German Government, the time it will take Germany/France/others to dev a new jet is long and the money for such needs to flow, probably at the expense of upgrades to Eurofighters/Rafales.

Germany does have a government but it's true that the current interim government would not want to make any large-scale strategic decisions until there is a parliament-backed government in place again. However, that doesn't mean that Germany and France aren't currently working on strengthening their cooperation in the area of military technology development. In my opinion the money is less of a problem than involving other EU nations in a joint German/Franco military development and procurement strategy. It's essentially the same issue that the two countries will be facing when they'll try to harmonize the corporate tax system in the EU.
 
vr773
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2017 5:10 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Jan 20, 2018 12:46 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I wonder what German pilot would say to all of you who want him to carry out a deep strike in contested airspace w EF?

I’ll bet dimes to $’s 99% of the pilots tasked w such missions would select an F35?

All this talk of FCAS is proof of one thing; 5 th gen is brilliant if and only if it is European.


Assume FCAS is "6th gen" and assume that detection technology surpasses "5th gen" stealth technology in the next 10 years. Shouldn't then all countries operating the F-35 immediately switch to FCAS?

What I'm also wondering is: Why would a German pilot need to do that? How exactly does the scenario "deep strike in contested air space" look like?
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:39 pm

vr773 wrote:
What I'm also wondering is: Why would a German pilot need to do that? How exactly does the scenario "deep strike in contested air space" look like?

With the current world order there are only two situations I could imagine:
A) Setup of a no-fly zone and destruction of enemy airfields & radar guided anti-air missiles in preparation of a large scale invasion or humanitarian intervention in the middle east or africa, like Lybia 2011, Iraq 1990 & 2003 or Yugoslawia 1995.
B) (Far less likely) Increasing hostilities between Germany/NATO/EU and Russia, China or another nuclear armed country lead to WW3 or at least another cold war.
I would agree that the likelyhood of German aircraft being used in a "deep strike in contested airspace" is approximately zero for the foreseeable future, regardless of whatever aircraft Germany posesses.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:32 pm

vr773 wrote:
When you write "nothing here that we didn't already know" you appear as speaking for everyone. This has the potential to discourage others from posting valuable information and it doesn't serve the interest of a vibrant discussion culture in my opinion. I for one found the interview very interesting.

Anyone who read the last three or four pages of this thread could have drawn the same conclusions. I didn't have a problem with Keesje posting the article, I just commented that there was nothing new in there. I doubt highly that prevented a vibrant discussion...

vr773 wrote:
In my opinion the money is less of a problem than involving other EU nations in a joint German/Franco military development and procurement strategy. It's essentially the same issue that the two countries will be facing when they'll try to harmonize the corporate tax system in the EU.

Agree, as was the case last time Europe circled a joint fighter, political agreement, requirements, export potential and workshare played very big roles.

vr773 wrote:

Assume FCAS is "6th gen" and assume that detection technology surpasses "5th gen" stealth technology in the next 10 years.

I think we can safely call those bad assumptions. While a disruptive technology may emerge there is no indication that 5th gen stealth will be compromised. Even if it was, a 5th gen asset with lower RCS would still provide more survivability than a 4th gen airframe with higher RCS. While the definition of "6th gen" is still up for debate, especially in the US which actually has the money, motivation and will to develop this platform, I would be very suspect of anyone calling FCAS "6th gen".
mxaxai wrote:
vr773 wrote:
What I'm also wondering is: Why would a German pilot need to do that? How exactly does the scenario "deep strike in contested air space" look like?

With the current world order there are only two situations I could imagine:
A) Setup of a no-fly zone and destruction of enemy airfields & radar guided anti-air missiles in preparation of a large scale invasion or humanitarian intervention in the middle east or africa, like Lybia 2011, Iraq 1990 & 2003 or Yugoslawia 1995.
B) (Far less likely) Increasing hostilities between Germany/NATO/EU and Russia, China or another nuclear armed country lead to WW3 or at least another cold war.
I would agree that the likelyhood of German aircraft being used in a "deep strike in contested airspace" is approximately zero for the foreseeable future, regardless of whatever aircraft Germany posesses.

We could all probably agree that those scenarios are what is probably expected of a German Tornado replacement and in that likelihood.

Question becomes, do you completely ignore scenario B when you can potentially acquire a new platform that can cover both scenarios with the same effectiveness?

Additionally, noting we have one thread here about the unlikely potential for a conflict of grand scale and high threat and then another thread about the A400M where Germany developed specific capabilities of the A400M to fight that very scenario...
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Jan 21, 2018 8:39 pm

This report will be in multiple threads. For context here it has some interesting claims made by Dassault CEO Trappier on a new European fighter.

The F-35 is a "machine to kill the European industry"

The CEO of the French group Dassault Aviation, Eric Trappier, has called the US-based Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II fighter a "machine to kill the European industry" in an interview published Friday by the weekly magazine 'Air & Cosmos' .
Mr. Trappier insisted on the need for French industry to develop "demonstrators" - like that of the European combat drone nEUROn, of which Dassault is the prime contractor - which, according to him, "to validate cheaper technologies and concepts before the launch of new programs ", as the concept of the future European combat system is emerging.

France and Germany have decided together to develop a "new generation of fighter planes", with a common "roadmap" on this issue to be defined "by mid-2018", according to French President Emmanuel Macron. Paris has proposed to Belgium to join in the framework of a "strategic and economic partnership" around the combat aircraft "omnirole" Rafale Dassault in the context of the replacement of the F-16 of the Belgian army .

"We will see if we will one day make a European fighter," said Trappier, who is also president of the Group of French industries aerospace (Gifas).

And to add: "What is certain is that the alternative not to do is to choose an American device.I wish a lot of pleasure to those who bought or will buy F-35 d 'be able to not be integrated into the US military because the F-35 is a machine to kill European industry, but also a machine to integrate you into the US armies.

http://trends.levif.be/economie/entrepr ... 86605.html

A couple of things that impact a future European fighter timeline as we have discussed recently.

First the call for greater development of demonstrators. It is clearly a good thing and as Trappier claims has the opportunity to reduce cost and risk on technologies. What it does do though is push the can down the road and may not actually result, as I believe we are seeing with NEURON, any realisation of that demonstrator technology.

Second, we see the boldness of Dassault in this process and the attacks against US interests which goes against his current Government's desires to integrate further with US forces. For example,
A number of Marine Nationale Rafale-M multi-role fighter jets and E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning and control aircraft, along with 350 support personnel and aircrew, will deploy aboard the USS George H.W. Bushthis Spring. Not only will the multi-national operation work to give Rafale-M aircrews much needed carrier qualifications—France's only carrier has been undergoing a mid-life refit—but it also aims to expand the two countries' abilities to operate fighter aircraft cooperatively from the sea for prolonged periods of time.

Captain Jean-Emmanuel Roux de Luze, the French Naval Attaché to the U.S. Navy, recently told USNI News the following:
“We want to demonstrate our ability to integrate with U.S. military services... We want to show we do maintenance, demonstrate we can load weapons."
Under the plan, French Rafale-Ms and E-2C Hawkeyes will fly to NAS Oceana in Virginia and train out of that location for a period of time. Then some of the aircraft, aircrews, and support personnel will fly out to the USS George H.W. Bush to operate as an integrated component of the carrier's air wing.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17 ... this-april

Given most of Europe is tightly integrated into the American/NATO system anyway I see little basis for his claims about integration being a bad thing. I don't have an issue with his claims on the industry side of things other than that the UK and Italy are certainly benefitting from their participation in the program, as are multiple other industry suppliers across Europe.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 22, 2018 1:50 am

Using FCAS to develop a 6th gen ac would be a smart move. A joint 6th gen program between the US and Europe would even be better. It would solve lots of issues not least of which is strengthening NATO.

Mr Tappier's comments should be sobering to those who think the F35 is somehow deficient or unnecessary.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 22, 2018 8:06 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Using FCAS to develop a 6th gen ac would be a smart move. A joint 6th gen program between the US and Europe would even be better. It would solve lots of issues not least of which is strengthening NATO.

Mr Tappier's comments should be sobering to those who think the F35 is somehow deficient or unnecessary.

I do not consider a proper "joint" US-EU project a good idea. It is hard enough to get Germany and France to sort their internal processes and agree on a joint project. Getting more european countries aboard -not as customers but as partners- will be a nightmare. The US and the EU joining forces in a project that makes everyone happy is impossible.
Compare the "Joint Strike Fighter". Many key items were developed outside of the US but it is still a distinctly american aircraft. The respective sales and budgets reflect that.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Jan 22, 2018 3:50 pm

It certainly won’t be easy but there are significant benefits for both sides.
 
Noshow
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 24, 2018 1:03 pm

A major concern for the germans is to get their stuff needed fast and on time. They are tired of repeated delays, reduced capabilities and cost overruns on their own, quite expensive programs from Europe. Certainly the F-35 is not the role model for doing everything right but at least it is available.

In some ways the european industry has wasted some golden years with several big orders from the defence side. I am not blaming the industry only. Political management was not adequate as well. We lack long term strategies and qualified program oversight.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Wed Jan 24, 2018 3:09 pm

Noshow wrote:
In some ways the european industry has wasted some golden years with several big orders from the defence side. I am not blaming the industry only. Political management was not adequate as well. We lack long term strategies and qualified program oversight.

True. The Eurofighter and other programs did not handle the lack of a long-term vision well.
Planeflyer wrote:
It certainly won’t be easy but there are significant benefits for both sides.

The last time they tried was the X-31, starting in 1981 (!), which can be considered a Eurofighter prototype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell-MBB_X-31
That ended with the US (and Germany) getting a lot of reasearch on thrust-vectoring, high angle of attack flight and other related topics, which the US eventually implemented (in the F-35). Germany however didn't use their gained data and the thrust-vectoring option for the Eurofighter never happened. The original possible application, the development of a joint replacement for the German F-4 and the US F-15/16 fleet, never happened after the US decided in 1986 (!) to pursue what would become the F-22. But since both sides were extremely careful to limit the technology transfer, the X-31 never really had a chance to move to a serial variant anyway.


Modern fighter aircraft do need a lot of time between the first developments and the eventual full operational capability...
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:16 am

Thanks, did not know the X31 was a joint program. Maybe it could be a model!
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:04 pm

Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing. Within the context of Russia announcing a rejunivation of their nuclear arsenal, as unbelievable as many of those claims are, can Germany walk away from NATO nuclear sharing?

Nuclear burden-sharing dictates that Germany acquire the F-35

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -the-f-35/
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 12:53 am

Ozair wrote:
Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing. Within the context of Russia announcing a rejunivation of their nuclear arsenal, as unbelievable as many of those claims are, can Germany walk away from NATO nuclear sharing?

Nuclear burden-sharing dictates that Germany acquire the F-35

Nuclear deterrence is again at the forefront of strategic planning issues — not only for the United States but also its major allies, particularly the members of NATO.

Moscow seeks to leverage the threat posed by its growing and modernizing nuclear arsenal to paralyze any Western response to its efforts to destabilize the political, economic and governmental stability of nations on Russia’s periphery, and shatter the alliance. Senior Russian leaders have repeatedly and publicly threatened the use of nuclear weapons against European nations, including NATO countries.

Russia has violated the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, even announcing that it was permanently stationing an advanced variant of the nuclear-capable Iskander missile to Kaliningrad from where they are but a few minutes flight time from critical NATO military installations in central Europe.

The Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review illustrates from an American standpoint the long-standing view that a strong, cohesive nuclear alliance is the most effective means of deterring aggression and promoting peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region. Deterrence, particularly of nuclear attack, is dependent on deploying and maintaining credible and effective military capabilities.

In addition, the sharing of responsibility for the storage and delivery of tactical nuclear weapons among member countries is a key aspect of NATO’s strategic deterrent. NATO’s arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons consists entirely of air-delivered B61 gravity bombs. Currently, in addition to U.S. forward-based fighters, five NATO countries — Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey — host tactical nuclear weapons, and all of these but Turkey have dual-capable aircraft dedicated to their delivery.

For Germany’s part, the new government faces a major defense procurement decision with serious consequences not only for that country’s security but the future of NATO. The German Air Force, the Luftwaffe, must decide within the next several years on a replacement for its fleet of some 70 Tornado fighters. These aircraft need to be retired starting in 2025.

What makes this otherwise rather modest requirement of such significance is that some of the Tornado fighters are dual-capable, meaning they have the special wiring and controls to deliver nuclear weapons. Unless their replacement is capable of delivering nuclear weapons, Germany will be unable to fulfill its commitment under NATO’s nuclear-sharing agreement.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.

Fifth-generation aircraft, currently the American-built F-22 and F-35, have capabilities that make them particularly suitable for missions involving countering advanced air defenses. Also, in recent Red Flag exercises, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieved a 15-to-1 air-to-air kill ratio against a variety of fourth-generation aircraft. These are the major reasons why three U.S. military services and the U.K., Italy, Norway, Canada, the Netherlands and Turkey, NATO members all, have already committed to acquiring the F-35. Belgium is currently examining several options to replace its F-16s, including the F-35.

Some number of F-35As, the version being acquired by the U.S. Air Force and several NATO allies, will be modified with the wiring and other gear to enable them to carry the B61. Current plans call for a nuclear-capable F-35A to be fielded in the early 2020s. This timeline would meet the Luftwaffe’s schedule for retiring its Tornado fighters.

Even senior German defense officials see the Joint Strike Fighter as their country’s best near-term option. The Luftwaffe’s chief of Staff has hinted that the F-35A is the only aircraft that can meet all his service’s requirements for a Tornado replacement. In addition, he pointed out, acquiring a stealthy fifth-generation fighter capable of attacking targets from far away would strengthen the interoperability of European air forces.

For political and industrial base reasons, the German government prefers to replace its Tornado aircraft with a European fighter. However, it is already too late to develop a new aircraft and meet the 2025 deadline.

In the long term, Germany will naturally want to pursue a European fifth-generation fighter capability. But for now, it makes sense for the Luftwaffe to acquire the F-35.

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/com ... -the-f-35/


Couldn't that be done with Rafales too? I guess it's all global politics. Trump scored points domestically playing isolationism. Here it's pay time maybe..
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/0 ... -national/
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:32 am

keesje wrote:

Couldn't that be done with Rafales too?

The article makes it clear the Eurofighter, and other 4th gen fighters such as the Rafale, won't likely survive a Russian IADS.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.


Rafales also won't carry US nuclear weapons and as we have covered on this thread already, the French don't have enough air launched weapons remaining to spare. Additionally, any deal between France and Germany on nuclear delivery would certainly be in violation of the NPT, while NATO nuclear sharing is not (NATO nuclear sharing is a legal grey area that has existed for 50+ years).
 
WIederling
Posts: 6513
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 11:46 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Thanks, did not know the X31 was a joint program. Maybe it could be a model!


Well, the foundation was an MBB invention moved forward by X-31 project lead Wolfgang Herbst.
It was seen as the first post war non Op Paperclip derived tech transfer from DE to US.

( Similar in a way to the gGerman post war VTOL designs that saw intensive introspection from the US .)
Murphy is an optimist
 
mxaxai
Posts: 562
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 2:09 pm

Ozair wrote:
keesje wrote:

Couldn't that be done with Rafales too?

The article makes it clear the Eurofighter, and other 4th gen fighters such as the Rafale, won't likely survive a Russian IADS.

The Luftwaffe needs a Tornado replacement that is not only outfitted to carry nuclear weapons, but also capable of delivering these weapons to their targets in the face of advanced, highly lethal air defenses on the first day of war. The German government has suggested the Eurofighter Typhoon might fit the bill. Currently, Germany operates 145 Eurofighters.

However, the Typhoon meets neither of these criteria. Designing, testing and certifying a nuclear-capable Eurofighter variant would take years to develop and add hundreds of millions of dollars to the already high cost of this aircraft. In addition, the ability of the Typhoon, like all fourth-generation fighters, to penetrate Russia’s integrated air defenses is already questionable. Because the nuclear deterrent mission must be credible from the outset of hostilities, before Russian air defenses have been attrited, the use of fourth-generation aircraft in this role is increasingly nonviable.


Rafales also won't carry US nuclear weapons and as we have covered on this thread already, the French don't have enough air launched weapons remaining to spare. Additionally, any deal between France and Germany on nuclear delivery would certainly be in violation of the NPT, while NATO nuclear sharing is not (NATO nuclear sharing is a legal grey area that has existed for 50+ years).

If the Eurofighter was nuclear capable the main advantage would be having a single type fleet. Maintenance would be easier. In the case of a potential deployment nuclear role, you would have 145 Eurofighters on your screens, any of which could be carrying a nuclear weapon. Alas, I agree that the development cost is too high to be acceptable for any politician.
In any case, neither NATO nor Russia would throw bombs on each other out of the blue and unless either of them finds a way to avoid all incoming nuclear bombs, the cost of an attack would be prohibitive. Just a few bombers or rockets finding their targets would mean millions dead.

Secondly, isn't France part of NATO as well? Where is the legal difference between NATO nuclear sharing between US & Germany and NATO nuclear sharing between France & Germany?
 
WIederling
Posts: 6513
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 3:20 pm

mxaxai wrote:
Secondly, isn't France part of NATO as well? Where is the legal difference between NATO nuclear sharing between US & Germany and NATO nuclear sharing between France & Germany?


France has its own nuclear capabilities. no sharing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

If the question ever arises that could probably fixed over night.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 8:18 pm

Large number of tactical nucleair weapons are probably a thing of the past. I can not imagine anybody choosing to use those in their home country. Anybody who does, is free to test them around their own home towns.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:03 pm

keesje wrote:
Large number of tactical nucleair weapons are probably a thing of the past. I can not imagine anybody choosing to use those in their home country. Anybody who does, is free to test them around their own home towns.

Perhaps you need to expand your reading,

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1387877&start=50

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-warheads

http://www.newsweek.com/china-wants-new ... wer-795401

mxaxai wrote:

Secondly, isn't France part of NATO as well? Where is the legal difference between NATO nuclear sharing between US & Germany and NATO nuclear sharing between France & Germany?

If you read the treaty it is clear France and Germany could not share without violating it but again it isn't an option because France doesn't have the air launched warheads to spare anyway.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 1903
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:24 am

Ozair wrote:
Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing.


Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

And Dan Goure, isn't that the nutter who wanted to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan and Iraq?
 
WIederling
Posts: 6513
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 11, 2018 9:58 am

VSMUT wrote:
Ozair wrote:
Some commentary from the Lexington Institute on why Germany should acquire the F-35, primarily based around nuclear sharing.


Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

And Dan Goure, isn't that the nutter who wanted to use tactical nukes in Afghanistan and Iraq?


That was what the people bankrolling Lexington Institute wanted to push. ( Trump seems to have voiced similar interest recently.)

I don't know about Goure ( or Thompsons ) personal leanings. Probably no clash.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:19 am

VSMUT wrote:

Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

Irrespective of where it comes from is there anything in what he wrote that is incorrect? It was a short article but succinct in stating the facts of what options exist for Germany to replace the Tornado and the nuclear issue is obviously a key consideration.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Posts: 6511
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:20 am

Ozair wrote:
VSMUT wrote:

Lol, really? The Lexington Institute? You couldn't find a less obvious bit of paid advertisement for Lockheed Martin? An "institute" that goes under the nickname of "ad firm for the defense industry"?

Irrespective of where it comes from is there anything in what he wrote that is incorrect? It was a short article but succinct in stating the facts of what options exist for Germany to replace the Tornado and the nuclear issue is obviously a key consideration.


Seems to be a key issue with the Dutch air force as well. Retaining the nuclear option. It basically rules out all other options but the F-35.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 12, 2018 2:49 am

Germany having to buy the fighters from Trump, because they must have nuclear weapons to use along east of Berlin & Dresden, in Poland, Tjech I presume or Baltic states, to kill Russians?

I would love to see the popular debate & vote in Germany on that that one :covereyes: Where have you been over the last 2 decades?

Image
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
salttee
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:26 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:27 am

The idea of "gravity" packages to deliver nukes seems archaic in the 21st century. Would a standoff missile with a couple of hundred or so kilometer range violate the NPT?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3016
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:41 am

salttee wrote:
The idea of "gravity" packages to deliver nukes seems archaic in the 21st century. Would a standoff missile with a couple of hundred or so kilometer range violate the NPT?

The B61 is a tactical nuclear weapon, meant to be used against targets out on the battlefield that are in closer proximity to friendly forces, on either friendly territory, or on contested territory. The intention is to drop the bomb to support battlefield objectives, or to neutralize a threat that conventional weapons would find difficult.

In other words, you use a B61 to completely vaporize a enemy division that's coming towards you on the battlefield before it has a chance to overrun you.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 1042
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:01 am

Germany has to buy AC that allow their pilots to complete a mission. We all hope NATO never has to fight in a contested environment but if it does, pilots become very precious.

Ok, you guys all say I’m nuts projecting 90% losses for 4 th gen AC. Maybe this is high but us there any doubt that compared to 5 th gen AC, 4 th gen survival and mission completion will be far worse?

Look at the recce posts above and ask yourself if Germany, w Tornados even has the capility now? Not over contested airspace it doesn’t.
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:17 am

This is an interesting turn of events as Germany considers a Tornado replacement...

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support


The Chief of the Luftwaffe is to leave his position in large part due to his support for a German procurement of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), Jane’s has learned.

Lieutenant General Karl Müllner will leave his position by the end of May, with the news of his retirement breaking just two days after Germany’s defence secretary, Ursula von der Leyen, was sworn in for another term.

Jane’s understands that Gen Müllner’s outspoken public support for the JSF as a successor to the German Tornado fleet was pivotal in the decision for his early retirement. “The Luftwaffe considers the F-35’s capability as the benchmark for the selection process for the Tornado replacement, and I think I have expressed myself clearly enough as to what the favourite of the air force is,” Gen Müllner told Jane’s and other media in November 2017.

The Chief of the Luftwaffe’s active support of the JSF clashes with current Ministry of Defence planning, which prefers a successor solution involving the Eurofighter Typhoon.

http://www.janes.com/article/78644/luft ... 35-support

Image
 
WIederling
Posts: 6513
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:05 am

Ozair wrote:
This is an interesting turn of events as Germany considers a Tornado replacement...

Luftwaffe chief dismissed over F-35 support



Lockheed Skandal and "topping from the bottom" preceeded by "embedding" comes to mind.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 11579
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Mon Mar 19, 2018 4:28 pm

I think the general gave his opinion but never expected US media, lobbyist and industry to take-off with it like they did.

https://www.google.nl/search?q=luftwaffe+F-35+general&rlz=1C1GCEA_enNL772NL772&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F2016%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F2017&tbm=

That said, I think US politics and industry should throw away their history books and re orientate themselves on European politics 2018.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LA704
Posts: 71
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:32 pm

I have seen some "stealthing" concepts of the F18. Would that be feasible for the Eurofighter?

BTW, does the EF or the F35 have the better payload/range?
318 319 320 321 332 343 722 731 732 735 73G 742 744 752 762 763 77W M11
 
Ozair
Posts: 2795
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 8:38 am

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:38 am

LA704 wrote:
I have seen some "stealthing" concepts of the F18. Would that be feasible for the Eurofighter?

The Eurofighter already has significant RCS reduction, about as much as it is going to get for a 4th gen aircraft. The issue will continue to be that clean the Eurofighter has a good RCS but when equipped for a typical mission all the stores are external so that increases the RCS of the airframe by potentially as much as an order of magnitude.


LA704 wrote:
BTW, does the EF or the F35 have the better payload/range?

Obviously a host of factors are involved in this type of comparison. LM did a comparison of A2A configs a few years back now, before the F135 had finished testing and assuming a number of deficiencies in the F135 compared to other aircraft/engines, and arrived at 751nm range in A2A config for the F-35 and 747nm for the Eurofighter with 3 external tanks. F-35 range has increased 60nm for A2G missions since then so the A2A profile will see an increase as well.

In a A2G profile the F-35 wins hands down given the current range for the A model is approx 665nm which includes an aggressive profile in and out of the target. That should be no surprise given the Eurofighter has 11,000 lbs of internal fuel (and needs three external 1,000 l tanks to get close to F-35 fuel loads) while the F-35 has 18,000 lbs.

You see from the below graphic that the Eurofighter also suffers from limitations with external fuel and pylons. If you want to carry Storm Shadow or other heavy A2G weapons for instance the pylons can hold that, or a fuel tank, but not both.

Image

CFTs are an option for Tranche 3 Eurofighters but only the British and Saudi aircraft have the correct mods to accept them and they have not yet finished development (but expect this to happen with the upcoming Saudi order).
 
WIederling
Posts: 6513
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 24, 2018 10:38 am

keesje wrote:
That said, I think US politics and industry should throw away their history books and re orientate themselves on European politics 2018.


you are out of your mind :-)))))))

EU is about as majorly broken as the US in that respect. Only in a different way.
Murphy is an optimist
 
angad84
Posts: 1985
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Germany Considers Tornado Replacement

Sat Mar 24, 2018 1:34 pm

That's an interesting graphic Ozair, particularly as I have never seen the Typhoon carry an LDP anywhere but the centreline. Methinks there's something to that...

Even BAE's P3E publicity materials only ever show photos and renders with a centreline LDP.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos